Nun, 83, faces ‘life’ sentence in US after nuclear protest

  • Thread starter Thread starter lizardley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
adrift said:
Because what she did was to break into and vandalized a place that was not only illegal but cannot be justified even though you tried with quoting the catechism as if it was condoning what she did.
Click to expand...
the catechism doesn’t condone her actions, it obliges her to act
toblige |əˈblīj|
verb trans. ]
make (someone) legally or morally bound to an action or course of action
Click to expand...
2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”48 “We must obey God rather than men”
Click to expand...
 
I don’t feel too sorry for her. It was her choice to do the crime.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending what she did. I’m opposed to such theatrics and destruction of property. But it would still make me squeamish sentencing a nun to prison. I guess that’s why I’m not a judge, though. 😛
Click to expand...
LOL.Judge Joe has a nice “ring to it.” You could get your own TV show,
Mary.
 
april32010 said:
the catechism doesn’t condone her actions, it obliges her to act
Click to expand...
The question is was her actions what the catechism was speaking to and it was not. She was not following the catechism. As the catechism points out there is a right to self-defense and it is not up to this sister (why do people refer to as a nun?🤷). You don’t see the Church coming to her defense because what she did was wrong.
 
adrift said:
The question is was her actions what the catechism was speaking to and it was not. She was not following the catechism. As the catechism points out there is a right to self-defense and it is not up to this sister (why do people refer to as a nun?🤷). You don’t see the Church coming to her defense because what she did was wrong.
Click to expand...
and the Church has addressed this
2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.
Click to expand...
”
 
maryjk said:
An “elderly nun” who thinks it is perfectly okay to break into a secure uranium processing plant and spray human blood around.

I am betting that is why it cost so much to clean up. Human blood isn’t something you just wipe up with a bucket of water. And if they sprayed it rather than threw it, it would be everywhere. Yuck.

And she has no remorse.
Click to expand...
👍
april32010 said:
and why should she ?
Click to expand...
Because as a, hopefully, educated Catholic religious woman, she should know that it is never justified to do evil, even for a good intended outcome. She should be remorseful and ashamed that her sinful behavior is being made public and may give scandal to others.
 
maryjk said:
An “elderly nun” who thinks it is perfectly okay to break into a secure uranium processing plant and spray human blood around.

I am betting that is why it cost so much to clean up. Human blood isn’t something you just wipe up with a bucket of water. And if they sprayed it rather than threw it, it would be everywhere. Yuck.

And she has no remorse.
Click to expand...
I agree.

There were much better ways of making the same point.

That said: being 83, are we entirely sure she was of sound mind? 😉
 
starshiptrooper said:
Conveniently overlooking the fact that atomic weapons ended one major war and probably prevented at least one more.
Click to expand...
Ends don’t justify the means. Killing civilians should never be done on purpose.

Breaking the law was part of the protest as is her imprisonment. I’m guessing she knew what she was getting into. I wish I was as brave as her.
 
starshiptrooper said:
Conveniently overlooking the fact that atomic weapons ended one major war and probably prevented at least one more.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍👍 (all 4 limbs)

Atomic weapons are not per se evil, any more than conventional arms or war itself.

The prevention of war is morally preferable to fighting one. IMNAAHO without the bomb, we’d have fought WW3 & 4 by now and be arming for 5.

As to the prison sentence, it does seem a bit much, especially since she will probably die there. But religious folks are supposed to set an example. When they stray from that, it should not be a shock when they are made an example of.

ICXC NIKA
 
**I don’t have the desire to spend my days in a jail cell, so I follow the law.

Just this last Saturday, I followed the law AND my religion,
and peacefully joined thousands of others protesting abortions in
the Pro-Life West Coast “Walk for Life”.

It IS possible to protest while you follow the law.
Sister should have remembered the old adage…
" If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime… " **
 
RPRPsych said:
I agree.

There were much better ways of making the same point.

That said: being 83, are we entirely sure she was of sound mind? 😉
Click to expand...
Are we to assume that an old head can’t be a level head?

ICXC NIKA
 
How does an 83 year old nun break into a secure nuclear facility? The government should be giving her an award for exposing their vulnerabilities for free. Lets just be thankful a nun got the idea to break into it before the terrorists. :confused:
 
J_Peterson said:
Ends don’t justify the means. Killing civilians should never be done on purpose.

Breaking the law was part of the protest as is her imprisonment. I’m guessing she knew what she was getting into. I wish I was as brave as her.
Click to expand...
I think conflating these two issues is an error.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - whatever the excuses conventionally trotted out - was a grave sin. No amount of jingoism or quoting secular apologists can annul that. This is what the Church teaches. There’s even a CA article to this effect.

However, the Church also teaches us that we are not to openly break just laws or violate property rights. That is what this Sister and her associates have done, and it was wrong. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing to do with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top